Photographic evidence that at least one moon mission is fake!!

Ok, here is the picture you just posted laid one over the other. How are these from different angles?

Here's a little thought experiment...

There are some mountains a few miles from my house. If I take a picture of those mountains from my front door, you would see those mountains in the
background and my front yard in the foreground of the photo. If I then went to my next door neighbor's front door and took a picture of those same
mountians, you again would see those mountains in the background, but the foreground woud be totally different (my neighbors front yard).

In each picture, those mountains will look exactly the same to a casual viewer and the difference in the angles angle would be practically
indistiguishable -- i.e., the background will seem to be unchanged. However, the foreground would be 100% different -- i.e. it would be a picture of
my neighbor's yard and not mine.

if you honestly believe that the US faked the moon missions, why not go visit the good people at mcdonald observatory in Texas ? They claim they have
never gotten a visitor who challenges the apollo missions. They could show you the lunar laser ranging station, and it's significance to this
debate

make history !

unless, of course, you are just bored and looking to kill time on the web...

Seriously, no one has ever challenged them? Yes, they could show me a lot of things I'm sure, everything but the moon. Besides, I never said they
didn't go to the moon, I'm providing evidence that what is shown the public is a publicity (For public consumption) stunt, and only one mission as
that is all I have evidence for.

Does no one understand that the Apollo Missions ran almost the exact same length as Americas involvement in the Vietnam War? Does no one understand
what both Eisenhower and JFK warned of? There is more than enough reason to lie to the public...Lots and Lots of money...Not aliens, not superiority
in the space race. JFK had other plans like actually going to the moon, not Johnson or Nixon. But, they saw a cover and something that could wash all
that money made by bell, and Northrop and Boeing and every other war profiteer as white as the moons surface.

Everyone forget the fact that the navigation computers were not as powerful as a watch computer from the 80's? The Van Allen radiation Belt?

when you say the folks at the mcdonald observatory couldn't show you the moon indicates to me you didn't actually research the facility.

not a single hoax believer has ever visited them. The reason, of course, is they can provide iron clad proof armstrong was on the moon
and planted the mirrors himself just like in this photo

everyone forgets the apollo astronauts brought back moon rock samples and gave them to many many countries as a good will gesture and not a single
nation has ever challenged the origins of the rocks in over 40 years

everyone forgets almost all the computations were done on earth and trasmitted to the apollo craft, so the computers didn't need to be any bigger or
faster

everyone forgets there were 400,000 people employed by NASA at the time of the apollo programs, and not 1 has ever come forward to say it was a
hoax

everyone forgets the guy the van allen belts are named after is on record as saying the astronauts were not in the belt long enough to suffer any
effects of the radiation

everyone forgets there must have been literally dozens of people involved in filming a hoax, and not a single one of them has ever come forward

everyone forgets the russians were listening to the apollo transmissions, and they had to point their equipment at the moon to do so

And to the challenge/thought experiment thing:
What mathematical operation can a modern PC do that a Apple II or C64 (or a PDP-1) can not? (yes, you can make a c64 calculate with 64 bit words. you
need more than 64 bits to store them, but you can calculate with them)

syrinx high priest. I thank you for the links you've provided. I would like to visit these places and honestly didn't know of their existence.

I look at it like this. I can ask a priest to show me God. They can't show me God, but they can show me everything in the world relating to him. They
can offer me every man on earth who is "connected" to God, be they the Pope, The Dali Lama, Mother Teresa, Yogi Mahrishi, and Muhammads Great Great
Great Great Great Grandson. The one thing they can't show me is God and guess what. They NEVER will be able too.

Perhaps I'm not very trusting in the leaders, and for that I am honestly sad. Perhaps I'm not very smart, and for that I am honestly sorry.

When I was a kid, I always wanted to go to Knots Berry Farm but we lived to far away to travel there. I would be in the car going, "come on dad,
please" and he would answer me like this, "Let's say we did, but don't".

Why would they need to set up a mirror to measure the distance to the moon? I thought lasers could do that by themselves, being a strait beam of
light? Plus, how did they calculate how far it was in the first place?

Couldn't they bring back rocks from Antarctica that would yield "off world" results?

Knott's Berry Farm was only two hours away from San Diego... (wasn't all that good, anyway...Disney way
better:lol

Antarctica?? You go out and try to find 880 lbs of 'off-world' rocks....plus the granules, the dust, all the little bits...OH! AND find something
that didn't have the tell-tale signs of heating up during entry through the Earth's atmosphere!

I didn't grow up in san diego. I grew up in northern Nevada. I would of gone nuts if I lived in san diego as a kid. My dad is cool he would of taken
me in a heart beat if he could of, but we were over 500 miles away.

Your animation was interesting. Reminded of how early 'roughing in ' of digital movies are done.

But, of course...the 'circle' was too small....would have to be at least tens of KM in radius...THEN you'd need an extremely strong single light
source...which would be the Sun. BUT, on Earth, the Sun only comes out during the day (last I checked).

Also, you'd have to bring in millions of tons of gray 'dirt'...gee, seems easier to just go to the bloody Moon!!!

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
I ask you a question or anyone else who believes the moon missions are real.

Why do you believe it? Is it the scientific evidence or is it because, faking it seams unrealistic?

I believe it happened because of the amount of evidence that supports it and because I honestly think faking it would be harder than actually doing
it. There were too many things you'd need to overcome in order to fake it, some things movies today still can't do.

If one were to believe in the various conspiracy theories regarding Apollo. It would require you to believe that NASA is both incredibly clever and
incompetent at the same time. Being able to fool everyone, even the Russian's. Yet making silly mistakes that even amateur film makers wouldn't do.
Like using shiny metal wires instead of matte black ones, which is the norm in movies. Things like that.

There were nearly half a million people who were apart of the Apollo program. Some of the brightest minds from the top Aerospace companies designed
and built all the hardware for NASA. Either they all had to be in on it or they were all left in the dark. I find either option completely
unrealistic. Had they all been in on it, you would probably have had hundreds of deathbed confessions by now.

And then there's all the evidence and tons of documentation that supports it. Some of the best evidence in my opinion, is the +800lbs of Lunar
samples. Which can't be faked on Earth or found in Antarctica. Meteorites found on Earth are different in both appearance and in composition from the
samples brought back from the Moon.

They (Trumball and Kubrick) did their darnedest to make it as realistic as possible, for its day. Still, for nitpickers, there are many
mistakes.

It is due partly to the consequences of shooting on the Earth, in a 1G environment.

Also, their vision of the Lunar landscape was off...more reminescent of the 1950s, with lots of sharp edges.

The exteriors of the spaceship models, out near the orbit of Jupiter, show a lot of light, even though the Sun is 5 to 5.5 AU away....that means
Jupiter is about 4 to 4.5 times farther from the Sun than Earth. Light will be dimmer. Of course, the models were highly detailed, and filmed with
loving care....

No....the sheer numbers of stills and videos and the Lunar soil and rock samples....the hardware, the telemetry, the audio recordings....it WOULD have
been far harder to fake all of that.

I in vision that Ike and Kennedy alike, really wanted to put an end to what they saw becoming a problem..."The military industrial complex".

I believe that Kennedy was a threat to this plan, even though his idea would of employed the same contractors, it would not of been the way we see it
now as Kennedy saw this as something that could bring the world together, that is the space frontier.

I believe his and all of the baby boom generation only wanted to carry on in the same pioneering spirit and most of all in peace.

For the past 5000 years known to man there has not been such an endevor that could bring all peoples together to strive for a goal other then killing
one another to profit of those sending them to die.

I believe Kennedy really did want the moon, but I believe Johnson had other plans and interests well rooted in the old system and wasn't about to
give up his fortune and fame.

That dream died with Kennedy. Maybe it might of been much easier to just go, but it would of been a lot cheaper to fake it. Some black backdrops,
sheet metal space ships, wires and grey dirt is the cost of making a b rate movie.

Same effect under military cover, which it is anyway, only profits that could never be seen if they actually had to go.

Originally posted by letthereaderunderstand
Maybe it might of been much easier to just go, but it would of been a lot cheaper to fake it. Some black backdrops, sheet metal space ships, wires and
grey dirt is the cost of making a b rate movie.

The movie "2001: A Space Odyssey" which was released in 1968, the same year in which Apollo 7 and 8 flew. The special effects were state of the art
at that time. The film had a budget of $10,500,000. That's no B movie budget. And as good as that movie is, it still doesn't come close to looking
as real or totally believable. There are certain things that are impossible to overcome when filming on Earth, like 1G gravity and an atmospheric
environment.

For example, when the Moon Shuttle lands at Clavius base in 2001. The thrusters blow dust off the landing pad. You can see that the dust billows up
and remains suspended in the air like a cloud and slowly falls to the ground. But in reality on the Moon. The dust would fall back to the ground much
quicker due to a lack of an atmosphere, (I know technically the Moon has an atmosphere, but it's extremely thin and not worth noting). If you watch
any footage of the LM landing you can see the dust blowing out from under it. You can see that it doesn't act like it's in an atmospheric
environment and doesn't remain suspended in the air like it would, if it were being filmed on Earth. The Apollo astronauts feet were always kicking
up dust when ever they were walking around. Again you see the dust falling back to the ground right away. Unlike on Earth, when you kick up dry
powdery dirt, you get a little cloud of dust hovering around your feet.

You'd also need a huge warehouse that's several KM in size for Apollo's 15 - 17 since they drove around in the Rover. There is no warehouse that
big to my knowledge, let alone one that is a vacuum chamber. And then there's the issue with gravity. Cable rigs like they use in movies wouldn't
work for Apollo since I believe they would limit your range of movement (like being able to only move forward and backward). Which is fine for movies,
since they work on a shot by shot basis. But the Apollo astronauts were moving all over the place with several hours of uncut, live footage. Plus how
would you edit out the cables and all the rigs and all related equipment the from live footage anyway? Plus the video camera did 360 degree pans (as
did the astronauts with the still camera). And no film crew or support system for cables is ever seen.

So I must strongly disagree that some cheap B movie could pull off making a convincing hoax. Especially when Stanley Kubrick couldn't over come
certain issues that were beyond his control. No amount of money would solve these problems. Unless of course that money is used to send people to the
Moon to film there instead.

Explain why it is, that in the third view of our "time lapsed" view of the fly around of the ISS that at the very top of the frame you can see the
ISS shadow on the water hundreds of miles below. It is so big, the shadow, that it looks as if a plane is flying over.

You can see the shadow of the ISS in the beginning of the third view as that view is cycled.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.